Amd X2 64 / Intel Duo 2 Core - Review (02-2007)

This is a very recent / objective review of price / performance of the latest Athlon X2 64 / Intel Duo Core 2 cpu's.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2933

It looks like the Intel Duo Core 2 E660 for around $316 is looking to be a very good upper mid range cpu for price and performance.

If your building a system, the easiest thing to do is figure out what you going to spend on a cpu. Find the intel cpu, and the amd cpu for your price range. Look at the performance charts and see which one best bang for your buck.

In regards to mother board chipsets.. there is a new Intel one coming out that will give Duo Core 2 a 15% boost and an new Nvidia amd chipset that supports the newer PCI Express video 2.0 socket as well as new tech right. Both of these are right around the corner.

I'm personally holding off upgrading my now ancient single core to when quad cores comes out and will then either get a mature high speed 2x core or a "new" tech 4x core.

I have not doubt in 2-4 months this article will be obsolete.

recently upgraded by building my own machine... after doing much research I found it was in my best interest to get AMD 64 X2 (4200+) because
1. Interfaces nicely with my ASUS NForce Motherboard (it is the must have for gamers) .
2. Spend less on the cpu save more for the GeForce 8600 which are mostly going to be nicely priced under $200.

AMD does have lower benchmarks but for the price ranger I'm not complaining and I have been using AMD since 1999 and it works fine. Save more spend in areas that count because the games use less cpu power and more gpu power for most of the load. If you are a gamer and are thinking of making a gaming machine then go for AMD.... but with the new AMD and ATI merger im getting pissed because NVIDIA > ATI

A couple of things here...games are, more and more, using a lot of CPU power. Your statement about games being only dependent on the GPU is becoming less and less true. One of the reasons that multi-core CPUs are becoming more and more prolific is that in the near future the CPU is going to be performing more and more work...those extra cores are going to be utilized to provide more general-purpose processing power for a large variety of tasks (integrated audio, complex game physics, etc). My past 5 CPUs have all been AMDs, and I'm a big fan of AMD as a company (my current gaming CPU is a Athlon X2 4200+ that I've had since the X2 line was released). That said, if you're a gamer, you should absolutely, positively opt for an Intel Core2 CPU right now. Looking at some current games (ex., Oblivion) and future games that are going to be much more complex in areas that the CPU is responsible for (ex., physics, AI, etc.), you'd be cheating yourself if you didn't take advantage of the power-for-the buck. Nothing personal, llsektorll, but I couldn't disagree with you more.

As far as your nVidia > ATI statement, well that's just silly. As a consumer you should be evaluating hardware on a product-by-product basis. NO COMPANY is universally the best when it comes to things like this. For example, nVidia has the #1 high-end GPU right now. However, in the midrange ATI blows nVidia out of the water. I have a machine with dual GF 7900GTs in SLI (bad idea) an my main machine has a single Radeon x1900xtx. A friend of mine has a 7900GTX, and another has a 7950 GX2. My x1900xtx provides a far superior gaming experience in most games than any of the 3 nVidia configurations. Not only is the image quality far superior, but in shader-heavy games (like Oblivion), the single x1900xtx provides 100% smoother gameplay experience. This is significant because a lot of the really pretty games coming up on the horizon (ex., Crysis) are shader-heavy games, and nVidia's 7XX0 series GPUs are, I hate to say it, pretty wimpy on the shader front compared to ATI's equivalent offerings. It took nVidia months to tweak their drivers to compete with ATI out-of-the-box hardware in games like Oblivion, and the ATI hardware still performs better.

Now, my next GPU could be nVidia...could be ATI...could be Little Debbie for all I know. I'll evaluate individual products when it's time for me to purchase one. Brand loyalty when it comes to things like CPUs and GPUs is not a great idea.

Quad core already is out
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

for the time being, quad core is useless for games. i wouldn't buy quad core until there are enough games that can take advantage of it.

i'm currently using a really bad computer, and i'm upgrading incrementally. gonna get a 7600GT until i need a dx10 card. as for the cpu, probably going to get the e6400 or e43xx series when the prices drop. i'm not even going to consider amd unless i find a really, really good deal...

If you are updating to a dual core, waiting til q2 is wise, because then the cheaper models of Intel's conroe series 6300 and 6400 will have the same amount of L2 cache than the more expensive processors, that is 4Mb. Current models are running half of the L2 disabled. Also, the lower price range 4x00 processors are scheduled to get a price cut in q2.

The real value of lower end Intel c2d comes from overclocking. I bought a 4300 and I am currently running it steadily at 2.5Ghz instead of the normal 1.8Ghz. Stress temperatures remaining under 60C, and I have semi-passive cooling as well (Thermalright HR-01 and a fan duct till a 12cm fan). Runs ok even at 3 Ghz, but I have no desire to push it, so I settle for 2.5Ghz, which makes it pretty fast for the money, haven't tested it except in superpi, but I believe it comes close to E6600, which costs twice as much.

Here's an interesting speed chart:



And here's anandtech's take on AMD currently:

I have been running a core 2 duo E6600 together with an Nvidia 7950GT for the last four months.

Trust me when I say this thing is seriously fast.

Not only is it seriously fast, but it is also extremely quiet! The latest core 2 duo processors are so power efficient (compared to the original dual core chips) that there is no need for dozens of huge, loud cooling fans.

One thing to be aware of when buying an extremely fast graphics card is that of you don't have a sufficiently fast processor to feed data to the card, then the processor itself become the bottleneck rather than the GPU.

Exactly. It used to be the case that the GPU was doing most of the really hard work in games and you could get away with having a slower CPU. A lot of newer games are going back to hitting the CPU hard. Oblivion is a great example of that, and with physics being a big technological focal point in the next generation of games it doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon.

Future looks pretty bleak for AMD in my opinion.

Personally, I think Barcelona will be everything it's supposed to be and more. So I don't mean the near term future, but the longterm outlook.

See, what's really disturbing to me is how AMD let themselves get caught up in a hopeless price war with Intel. This is just crazy. Especially after they assumed 4-point-whatever billion bucks in debt buying up ATI.

A protracted price war is going to make them bleed red. Intel is going to suffer, too, but they are in a better position to weather the storm...first of all Intel enjoys a much higher profit margin to begin with, meaning they can slash prices a lot more before they hit bone. And secondly, Intel has greater liquidity, ability to raise cash.

Also Intel has already made the switch to 45nm technology while ATI has yet to show that it's 65nm fabs can reliably supply OEMs with product.

For the next four months, money is going to be gushing out of AMD as their cash reserves (now at 1.3 billion) dwindle to nada.

Then in June, or more likely July, AMD will grab back the CPU crown with Barcelona!! Hurray!!

There will be a lot of hooplah, and articles in Anandtech and TH going on about how the king is back.

But alas! AMD won't enjoy the crown for very long, cause Intel's 45nm chips will prolly be out December or at the latest 1Q 07.

And meanwhile, ATI _still_ has to make the switch to 45nm process which means new fabs and even more debt.

That's gonna be how it is from now until AMD yells "uncle".

It's not like Intel is going to let up now when they've finally got the upper hand. They've got AMD by the throat and they are gonna squeeze until their eyes pop.

And let's be clear about this. AMD is never gonna catch Intel with its pants down again like they did with Opteron in 2003. Intel's roadmap is exactly designed to prevent that from every happening again.

So how exactly is AMD supposed to win this so-called CPU war? They can't. If Intel is gonna finally start playing hardball, AMD is screwed. Game over.

You're probably right, easyg, but let's hope AMD can pull something out of their hat. Competition is good for us consumers, and if Intel goes back to their 100% dominant position we all get to go back to paying through the nose for their CPUs. If not, well, it was nice to see someone make Intel sweat...even if it was just for a little while. It would be embarassing for AMD to have to go back to being the second-rate bargain basement brand like they used to be.

I agree with dex, I hope AMD gets their act together. Personally, I prefer Intel, but without much competition we'll end up paying alot of money for a piece of junk.

When you say 15% boost are you saying there is a newer processor model coming out or is it simply because of the new motherboard chipset?
Any idea when thats being released?

Biggest crock of crap I've read on here in ages...

AMD have openly said that they are not releasing the R600 chips for two reasons... 1, they don't believe they have a use yet, aswell as wanting to make sure that vista/XP support is up and running and 2, they are streamlining releases and going through (under AMD's guidance) a product renaming and restructure, meaning it will be easier for the consumer (us!) to follow what they are producing and selling and AMD want to include a GPU on each CPU when AM3 chips become available, on top of having a CPU core on each graphics card...

This "Fusion" core, as they are calling it, will enable the graphics card and teh CPU to actually talk to each other via the two way archetecture that PCI-E is capable of, meaning that with the same technology they have now, they can boost performance and give us a better graphical AND processing boost, through no extra technology

imagine a CPU with a GPU built into it to do all the number crunching... technically, a GPU is just a number cruncher and if you ran your PC off GPU cores alone, it would run between 30 and 60 times quicker, now imagine your graphics card and CPU actually talking to each other in real time, this would mean that, on current technology, we would see an increase in games similar to the increase we've seen in the last 10 years, within 10months

I'm an AMD fanboi, I was also an nvidia fanboi, until i kept track of what AMD has in store for us in the next year and if the plans AMD has come to pass, Intell and nvidia are in real trouble

This fanboiness is a concept I fail to grasp. Like Dex, I feel that a healthy price competition is the best thing from consumers' point of view. Brand loyalty really escapes me, what does it matter what the sticker inside your chassis is, as long as the system gets the job done the best/fastest way possible within your budget restraint?

Q3 2007 - New Intel Chipset

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/chipset...215115130.html

Gosh, I really feel badly for Fan Boys, no matter their stripe. I have no market loyalty. I'm loyal to myself and my own needs.

I have to admit, I view AMD's future outlook mostly from the perspective of Wall Street (i.e. as an investment). As an investment, they look very bad.

AMD 12-month trend is an arrow pointing down. Stock closed yesterday at 14.55, off $25 from it's price-point this time last year, and it's hasn't bottomed out yet. When a stock loses more than half it's value in a 12 month span, I think it's safe to say it isn't doing well.

Every analyst I've read the last few weeks has downgraded AMD to "sell" with some guys expecting the stock to plunge to below $9 in the next few months.

Be that as it may, the fact is Penryn-cores will be out this year, not next year as originally thought.

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Pulls...ticle6185c.htm

I don't see how AMD can remain competitive ad infinitum if Intel continues to leverage it's advantages in manufacturing.

let me rephrase that statement was made during work while i wasn't on a break ...

anyways what I ment to say is not what it came out to be
it really depends on the type of game you are planning on playing
if it is supreme commander with the units across the battlefield then yes you need a godly CPU... if it is something like a FPS where its less on the amount of units more on the rendering capabilities of your GPU then you need a better GPU.

What I am trying to say is a decent CPU will get you by as long as it doesn't bottleneck your godly GPU

btw thus far ATI has a bad rep for overheating GPUs ....

That's true to a point, but even the upcoming FPS-type games are going to be hitting your CPU very hard. AI and physics are about to explode...they've been a huge focus in dev discussions for upcoming games. Even in FPS games the physics engine alone could demand nearly an entire CPU core's resources...

yeha, but they are 'fake' quad core, its just 2, dual core cpu's in the 1 package, they still need to use the northbridge to communicate 2 cores to 2 cores, which causes a bottle neck, and you cannot use all 4 cores independantly, you can use Cores 1+2 OR cores 3+4, not Cores, 1 and 3, or cores 4 and 2, this is because of the 'none internal' bridge between the cores....

quadcores is just the beginning really. all roadmaps (intel and amd) point to the manufacturers trying to jam more and more cores onto a die.

in the multiprocessor era, whichever company can shrink its technology faster is going to be the eventual winner. thats the only reason i tend to give the nod to intel. they have a big headstart with the 45nm stuff

there was an interesting piece in theinquirer about how important the rh core is for amd. eveyrone should read it. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37270

summed up, the new rh core has to be tremendous. not just better than c2d, it has to be better (or at least competitive with) intel's next core (penryn due the end of the year).

seems like a tall order to me. but then amd seems to be able to pull miracles out of its hat when it needs to.

Right and as an AMD shareholder (I bought 10 shares last year ) I'm quite happy as the letter I recieved shows that even after the purchase of ATI (and the obvious drop in profits any big company purchase/merger entails) aswell as the massive amount they just spent on the new AMD/ATI headquarters and R&D department they just built, as a shareholder, I'm quite happy

LOL @ this thread. Umm... without going too far into this...

First off, the Quad core Intel is remarkable. The reason for its poor performance is the lack of parallel compilers on the market, which means that we don't use the CPUs at all really. Even dual cores currently are not being used to full capacity and are actually inefficient. Why? The TOTAL LACK of Parallel thread support.

Trust me on this guys, I build design these things for a living. These are not shortcomings of the CPU design, they are shortcomings of the software/execution set designs. If they were optimized, we would see around a 53-78% (actual lab data) increase in performance. Why are they not using parallel threaded software? EXPENSE! Current compilers lack the functionality and power to EFFICIENTLY compile complex multi threaded paralleled and synced programs. It takes too much time and too much effort right now, and as a result, it holds the CPUs back. The only real advantage you will see from a dual/quad/octacore designs is purely in a server bound high RAM environment. Besides that, the REAL performance gain is minimal at best.

As for the AMD vs Intel debate... I can't really comment seeing as how if I do, AMD could get me for slander or advertising without license, so... I won't go there. AMD does have excellent price points however, in direct competition with our current offerings.


EDIT> In retrospect, I looked back at EasyG's replies. EasyG, you cannot assume ANYTHING about a company, don't ever make that mistake. Intel made the mistake to underestimate AMD once, and history repeats itself. Now, over my dead body am I going to let AMD out engineer me, but... you get the point. AMD has always been good at playing underdog and staying alive. The reason their stock is down btw, is NOT because they are not doing well as a company, it is due to the MASSIVE debt they have incurred. They purchased ATi for more then twice their COH (Cash on Hand), and then they proceeded to, in the same period, begin construction of the 3rd most expensive manufacturing plant in the world in New York state... When you are in debt, your stock goes down. Intel's stock dipped very low for a while, but they came back. Don't ever assume that a company will go under because of its share prices. Apple is a great example! I will let you do your own research on them, but that is just ONE OF MANY examples. Hope that clears it up a bit for ya!

Rahja is bang on (and its so nice to read posts by someone who actually knows what they are talking about on here)

but yeah, just keep an eye on what AMD have got cooking on teh stove this year and early 2008, however, if you really need to get a new system right now, then personally I'd go for an nvidia chipset for an AMD AM2 X2, but thats my personal choice (and what i price up for my friends when I build for them)